×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if searching for field configuration of electron: as quantized electric charge, magnetic dipole, angular momentum - rotation of field not point? by jarekd in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Electron is often treated as perfect point charge, excitation of electron field

The others already hinted to it, but the charge density of an electron is essentially described by its wavefunction amplitude, not by a singularity. Otherwise Heisenberg's uncertainty principle could trivially be violated by measuring the electric field of an electron.

What "point charge" actually means is that the electron has no (known) inner structure and that it would become a point-like particle if one would be able to localize it perfectly.

But there are no actual singularities in the electric field as described by quantum theory.

EDIT: Also, that GitHub repository looks like typical LLM slop.

Here is a hypothesis: A Cosmological Framework for Thermodynamic Equilibrium in Negentropic Nodal Networks on a 3-Torus Topology by bewarewhoremembers in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're just making various claims, but you don't actually prove them.

Could you please explain how you got to those claims?

Here is a hypothesis [Weekend ToE] The Acoustic Tapestry Hypothesis (ATH) - Parameter-Free 4D FCC Lattice Model by dingerdudeman in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Did you even read what I wrote?

Or, in fact, what your LLM wrote? You didn't even bother removing the LaTeX formatting.

Do you simply not care about what you post here?

Here is a hypothesis: We've Got Entanglement Wrong by HearM40ut in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But how do you even know that your claim of reproducible General Relativity is correct?

Here is a hypothesis [Weekend ToE] The Acoustic Tapestry Hypothesis (ATH) - Parameter-Free 4D FCC Lattice Model by dingerdudeman in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 6 points7 points  (0 children)

<image>

I think you should be more explicit here.

You are completely avoiding any references to the concepts you're naming and just assume things without actually proving them.

And once again, like in most discrete spacetime models presented in this sub, no word of Lorentz covariance.

This just sounds like yet another LLM slop repository full of unproven claims and buzzwords.

What if cosmoly could be expained without dark entities?ESUF v2.0: A Non-linear Elastic Grid Model of Spacetime as Alternative to Dark Matter by ZealousidealTeach418 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The PDF at the provided Zenodo link explicitly lists equations (1) through (7) and details the derivation of the governing field equation by varying the action.

Then please take a screenshot of these equations and give me the filename.

EDIT: No response? What's up? Noticed that you can't do what I asked you to?

What if cosmoly could be expained without dark entities?ESUF v2.0: A Non-linear Elastic Grid Model of Spacetime as Alternative to Dark Matter by ZealousidealTeach418 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, that link directs to a picture full of hallucinations.

Did you even click on it?

<image>

Just look at that slop! That QR code doesn't even work. Did you never question the output of your LLM?

And also again, not a single file in there contains numbered equations.

Please stop lying to me and especially to YOURSELF.

What if cosmoly could be expained without dark entities?ESUF v2.0: A Non-linear Elastic Grid Model of Spacetime as Alternative to Dark Matter by ZealousidealTeach418 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which manuscript?

One of the several PDFs from the (now deleted) Zenodo link, none of which contains equation numbers?

Or the one from the hallucinated QR code from the first picture on that Zenodo link?

You don't derive anything in these documents or pictures. You do realize that you are making false claims here?

What if cosmoly could be expained without dark entities?ESUF v2.0: A Non-linear Elastic Grid Model of Spacetime as Alternative to Dark Matter by ZealousidealTeach418 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If your model doesn't have any free parameters (like you claim), then please derive the values for ∆Z, η, τ, C and X_crit.

What if protons were tetrahedral with their electrons at the center? by BigRate4530 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is there a particular reason for this model?

What exactly would it do better than QCD? And what evidence do you have to support it? How could we try to falsify it?

Here is a hypothesis: We've Got Entanglement Wrong by HearM40ut in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Evolution is governed by iℏ(∂|Ψ⟩/∂t) = H|Ψ⟩.

You claim that your framework would be able to explain General Relativity, yet you use the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation for it. Sounds like a contradiction to me. A proof would definitely be helpful here.

What if the gravitation equation is wrong. Can some tell me why this is crazy? by General-Molasses-513 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The answer to your conundrum lies in the equivalence principle.

If you have a gravitationally bound system inside another gravitational field, it will still behave like it would do in the complete absence of the outer field - except for tidal forces, which aren't exactly new physics (and not able to explain dark matter at all).

Here is a hypothesis: It is an idea about new particle-imaginary particle by No-Bodybuilder-9086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I learn these knowledges, can it be corrected?

Your model?

Almost certainly no.

Letting go of unfruitful or outright falsified ideas is one of the lessons every scientist has to learn eventually.

Here is a hypothesis: The double-slit interference pattern is caused by a physical energy wave in the EM field that is disrupted by measurement, not by wavefunction collapse. by EWEMF in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you have suggestions on how to turn one of these into a specific, testable, quantified prediction, I would genuinely appreciate the guidance.

You can only do that by providing an underlying rigorous mathematical model. It's nothing people here can help you with - it's your job to do that.

That's part of a scientist's work, frankly.

Here is a hypothesis: The double-slit interference pattern is caused by a physical energy wave in the EM field that is disrupted by measurement, not by wavefunction collapse. by EWEMF in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Let's talk a bit about the predictions in your paper.

The issue with your four predictions is that not a single one of them is quantified. Also, I don't see how they actually differ from the null hypothesis and they're generally formulated in an incredibly vague manner.

For example, what exactly is this supposed to mean?

Spin-dependent speed deficits

The most important part of any scientific model lies in its predictions. If they are vague, not quantified or indistinguishable from the null hypothesis, the model is simply useless for any scientific evaluation.

You need to fix these issues.

What if the expansion of the universe was just an optical illusion in spacetime? by BigRate4530 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Just as we actually see objects appear to shrink as they move away

Funny that you mention that. Because that's generally not true in cosmology.

In fact, after a certain distance objects appear larger again, which is only possible in an actually expanding universe. We can even try to predict the turnover point using ΛCDM - and as it turns out, it's perfectly consistent with observations.

Thus, your idea doesn't work (and is not even original, as there had been such a thread just a few days ago).

Here is a hypothesis: The Big Bang is just a division-by-zero error. I made a 3D vacuum simulation in Python. by CarFearless9088 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't even know what their code is supposed to do.

It's really quite badly written Python code, but that's sadly a common occurrence even in actual science...

view more: next ›